Wednesday, January 07, 2009

Jeff Van Gundy? Are you kidding me? Why do they allow him anywhere near a microphone?

This is going to be a long night.

UPDATE 7:20 PM: What a bunch of little ticky-tack bullshit fouls! And, as I know the good Angus agrees, how in the world can they call that crappy charge with the defender camped out basically right under the basket? Get out the damn way, son! It's dangerous when guys set up to undercut someone jumping for a basket. Ten feet out, sure, a charge. But no charges right up under the basket.

The refs are going to call 30+ fouls in the game, at this rate. Swallow the whistle for a few minutes, fellas. Let the young men play.

UPDATE 7:28 PM: Jesus on a stick. Four trips down the floor, each way: 4 travels, and 2 absolutely phantom charges. One of them has the Davidson player jumping to a spot under the basket as the Duke player was going up. It's a foul on Davidson, but the idiot calls a charge on Duke.

Look, I'm rooting for Davidson here, but this may be the worst refereed game I have ever seen. I was kidding the first time, but I'm serious now: Angus could do a better job reffing this game. Really.

The latest reffing outrage is ANOTHER charge, UNDER THE BASKET AGAIN. And this time the defender is still doing the FREAKIN' ELECTRIC SLIDE step just to get there. That wasn't a charge if it was at mid FREAKIN' court! And no way you call it under the basket.

I seen better refs in intramurals, back at Wash U, watching Trout's Raiders play.

UPDATE 7:52 PM: Announcer Mark Jackson just said that Curry is clearly going to be an NBA point guard, because he passes so well, as we can see.

This after Curry had four turnovers: three passes to no one, and one pass right to Kyle Singler, under the basket. Now, it's true that Singler was open. But he also plays for Duke. This, I submit, is a drawback.

Then, less than 60 seconds later, Mark Jackson said that Duke's guard Paulus is a "true professional, at the college level." Does he mean that Paulus is going to play professionally? I hope not. Does he mean that Paulus is getting PAID to play for Duke? That is a pretty significant allegation. I am mystified.

Halftime. I can't stand it. Going to the gym. Post mortem after the mortem.

FINAL UPDATE: Back from the gym, 9:42 PM

Post-mortem--

1. Davidson's Lovedale could play off the bench, or even starting small forward, for quite a few teams. Not top 10 teams, but he is a perfectly solid player.

2. Mark Jackson persisted in this "Stephen Curry is going to be the best point guard in the NBA" thing. But Van Gundy (I now love Van Gundy; sue me) totally ripped him, no mercy. Excellent television. Mark Jackson should ONLY get to speak if Van Gundy gets to correct him.

3. Second half was pretty fun to watch, after the refs appeared to leave their whistles in the locker room. There were muggings, and several times somebody lowered their shoulder and played "bowling for fouls" running down the lane, knocking defenders aside like the 1-2-3 pins. And the refs NEVER called charging. Much better.

Abstract:Rebuilding social and economic order in conflict and post-conflict areas will be critical for the United States and allied governments for the foreseeable future. Little empirical research has evaluated where, when, and how improving material conditions in conflict zones enhances social and economic order. We address this lacuna, developing and testing a theory of insurgency. Following the informal literature and US military doctrine, we model insurgency as a three-way contest between rebels seeking political change through violence, a government seeking to minimize violence through some combination of service provision and hard counterinsurgency, and civilians deciding whether to share information about insurgents with government forces. We test the model using new data from the Iraq war. We combine a geo-spatial indicator of violence against Coalition and Iraqi forces (SIGACTs), reconstruction spending, and community characteristics including measures of social cohesion, sectarian status, socio-economic grievances, and natural resource endowments. Our results support the theory's predictions: counterinsurgents are most generous with government services in locations where they expect violence; improved service provision has reduced insurgent violence since the summer of 2007; and the violence-reducing effect of service provision varies predictably across communities.---------------------

Dictators, development, and the virtue of political instability

Ronen Bar-ElPublic Choice, January 2009, Pages 29-44

Abstract:A large body of literature stresses the benefits of regime stability for economic growth in poor countries. This view, however, discounts the gains from threats to regime security when populations living under dictatorial regimes cannot benefit from the disciplining of political competition available to voters in democracies. This paper applies a model of economic growth to study the sources of the differences in economic performance and repression policy among dictatorships as well as the parallel in dictatorial regimes of the benefits achieved through political competition in democracies. Threats to the security of dictatorial regimes are shown to be a means of benefiting the population through the responses of the regime.

It seems time for the "Grand Game." I would say that the scariest part of the article is one of two possibilities:

a. First, on votes not counted, but now counted, for Franken, the WaPo weasels say "Don't ask." Just trust us, folks, NOW the count is correct. Don't worry your pretty little heads over the details. But, when other ballots might favor Coleman, they are "allegedly wrongly rejected." Is it okay if we ask about THAT? Or should we just wait until you get this all decided behind some locked door?

b. Al Franken and that hot Senator "Frazier*" picture. Wow.

Look, I'm no fan of Norm Coleman. But Al Franken? AL FRANKEN? Golly.

*George W. Bush calls Diane Feinstein "Frazier." Yes, he does. Because Barbara Boxer (BOXER) is called "Ali." I'm not sure why Bush might think that Boxer and Feinstein are Ali-Frazier style rivals, but there it is.

Dr. Perdue has been the Lt. Governor, and presided over everything done in the NC Senate, over the last 8 years. Her governorship represents an explicit extension of the corrupt and incompetent governing style of the NC Eastern Dem machine.

Governor Perdue should say: "Just look at me and you see me changing my story, about almost everything." (Note: that last link is from the local National Public Radio affiliate. These are not exactly right-wing hatchet jobs. I am reproducing the list of inconsistencies, in case the link up and disappears....)

Beverly Perdue Biographical Inconsistencies“Coal Miner’s Daughter”In 2000 Beverly Perdue claimed she grew up “real poor” as a “coal miner’s daughter.” In actuality her father was a millionaire who owned the mine.• While running for lieutenant governor in 2000, Perdue claimed she grew up “real poor.” She also would often show her campaign video titled “Coal Miner’s Daughter.” Perdue provided a voice-over in the video and said, “We never knew we were poor.” At the time Perdue failed to mention that her father eventually owned the mining company and was a millionaire. A classmate of Perdue’s brother told The Independent Weekly Beverly was “was one of the privileged girls’” in town.” The News & Observer reported another inconsistency in the video, “As [Perdue] talks on her campaign video about her family and humble childhood in Grundy, Va., the video image pulls into a close-up of a gaunt man, his face streaked with coal dust…. The man pictured is not Perdue's father.” [The Independent Weekly, 3-29-00; News & Observer, 4-12-00]• Perdue implicitly referred to this mishap during her campaign kickoff event for governor: “My dad started as a coal miner, he worked his way up, and he became very successful.” [Beverly Perdue, New Bern, 10-1-07]

Public School Teacher Over the years, Beverly Perdue has made numerous claims about being a public school teacher, including that she taught in North Carolina.• In a 1991 resume Perdue listed her “Professional Experience:”• “Public School Teacher, Louisville KY.”• “Substitute teacher 1970 Kindergarten, Winder, Ga.,”• “1971-1972 Ninth grade Civics teacher in Jacksonville, Fla.”• 1978-1982 “Teacher; Kindergarten, Ninth Grade and Twelth [sic] Grade”• In a 1995 resume Perdue listed her “Prior Experience:”• “Teacher, Kindergarten, Ninth Grade and Twelfth Grade”• In a 2007 speech to NARAL Perdue said she taught public school after earning her PhD. This claim directly contradicts her statements regarding the timeline of her teaching career. Perdue told NARAL, “[Perdue’s parents] preached education as the difference maker, and I took it to heart and made them proud when their daughter earned her PhD. I went on to become a public school teacher, and a geriatrics director at a community hospital in Craven County.” [Speech to NARAL, 4-17-07]• Perdue told the NCAE in 2007 she “worked as a public school teacher in Georgia andFlorida—taught K, 9th, and 12th grades.” [Beverly Perdue 2008 NCAE Gubernatorial Candidate Questionnaire]• In early October 2007, the News & Observer’s Under the Dome blog reported, “In 1969, Perdue worked as a public school teacher in Louisville, Ky. In 1970, she worked as a substitute kindergarten teacher in Winder, Ga., and from 1971 to 1972 she worked as a ninth grade civics teacher in Jacksonville, Fla.” The Under the Dome page has now been edited and lists Perdue’s experience simply as, “In the past, Perdue worked as a public school teacher.” [News & Observer’s Under the Dome Blog, 10-3-07 saved version; News & Observer’s Under the Dome Blog, accessed 10-8-07, http://projects.newsobserver.com/dome/profiles/beverly perdue]

Small Business OwnerBeverly Perdue has also claimed to be a small business owner. To our knowledge, she has never identified the small business that she owns.• In April 2007, Perdue spoke to National Federation of Independent Business members at the NFIB/North Carolina's Small-Business Day at the Capital. “Perdue recalled her years as a small-business owner and empathized with the challenges facing small businesses today, particularly finding affordable health care.” [Members Meet Legislators, Lt. Gov. Perdue Speaks at Small-Business Day, National Federation of Independent Business, accessed 10-8-07, http://www.nfib.com/object/IO 33284.html]• In a January 2005 interview with UNC-TV Perdue said, “Small business has been a huge piece of my personal and political focus the last four years. I ran a small business and never understood why we could continue as a state to constantly focus on the big businesses and the out-of-state businesses.” [UNC-TV, NC NOW, Interview with Beverly Perdue, 1-18-05]

Doctorate DegreeAt different times over the years, Perdue has made conflicting claims regarding the subject of her doctorate from the University of Florida. She has said it was in education and she has said it was in health-care, specifically gerontology.

Health-care• In a January 2002 interview with UNC-TV, Beverly Perdue answered a question abouther first year as lieutenant governor, “It’s what I’ve been trained in. I’m a policy planner, it’s what my Ph.D is in – aging and health-care.” [NC-TV, NC NOW, Interview with Beverly Perdue, 1-15-02]• In April 2007, Perdue’s then Chief-of-Staff and current campaign manager ZachAmbrose e-mailed a “Perdue News” newsletter containing a profile of Perdue. Ambroseintroduced the article, “I wanted to pass along to you a good profile of Lt. GovernorPerdue that was published in the inaugural issue of Women in the Triangle published by Business Leader magazine. The article mentioned, Perdue earned “a Ph.D. inadministration with a focus on gerontology, the study of aging.” [“Perdue News”Update, 4-20-07]

Many press accounts also describe her doctorate as either in education or health-care. There is no evidence Perdue has asked for corrections in these articles.

Education• A 2002 Charlotte Observer article’s entry on Perdue’s education stated she received a “doctorate in education, University of Florida, 1976.” [Charlotte Observer, 8-4-02]• A 2007 Charlotte Observer article which described Perdue’s campaign kick-off eventstated she received a “Ph.D. in education administration from University of Florida1976.” [Charlotte Observer, 10-2-07]

Health-care• A 1987 Charlotte Observer article stated, “After earning a doctorate in gerontologyin 1976, she developed a career as a consultant in health care problems of the elderly, specializing in community-based programs. She has written an unpublished, 400-page novel dealing with the problems of aging.” [Charlotte Observer, 4-5-87]• A 1995 Fayetteville Observer stated “[Perdue] has a Ph.D. in health administrationand is a geriatric care consultant and a lecturer and writer on aging and health care.” [Fayetteville Observer, 11-26-95]• A 2000 Charlotte Observer stated Perdue earned a “doctorate in gerontology inFlorida.” [Charlotte Observer, 10-15-00]• A 2006 News & Observer stated, ““A two-term lieutenant governor, Perdue is attempting to become North Carolina's first female governor. The daughter of a Virginia coal mine owner, she earned a doctorate in geriatric care and battled her way up in politics starting as a state legislator from New Bern before rising to lieutenant governor.” [News & Observer, 12-15-06]

UPDATE: In comments, Dave DeWitt of WUNC notes that I am incorrect, in terms of facts, regarding Dr. Perdue's doctorate. It does in fact address gerontology. Thanks for the correction.

Abstract:Despite all theoretically and empirically motivated criticism of GDP as a social welfare and progress indicator, its role in economics, public policy, politics and society continues to be influential. To resolve this paradox, one has to recognize that many economists accept the criticism of the GDP indicator but deny its relevance. This paper evaluates the reasons for denial. This entails five steps: (1) a brief review is offered of the extensive literature showing that GDP per capita (growth) is far from a robust indicator of social welfare (progress); (2) the influence of GDP information on economic decisions by firms, consumers, investors andgovernments is examined; (3) behavioural explanations for a widespread belief in the relevance of GDP are discussed; (4) the customary arguments in favour of the GDP indicator are analysed; and (5) proposed alternatives to GDP are evaluated. The paper ends with outlining the implications of giving less attention to GDP information in policy and politics. It is argued that removal of the information failure which GDP represents, in monitoring economic progress and guiding public policy, will lead to decisions and developments being more in line with improving human well-being. Moreover, ignoring GDP information is consistent with a perfectly neutral stance regarding economic (GDP) growth. Indeed, an unconditional anti- or pro-growth imperative acts as an unnecessary constraint on our search for human progress.

Abstract:National saving rates differ enormously across developed countries. But these differences obscure a common trend, namely a dramatic decline over time. France and Italy, for example, saved over 17 percent of national income in 1970, but less than 7 percent in 2006. Japan saved 30 percent in 1970, but only 8 percent in 2006. And the U.S. saved 9 percent in 1970, but only 2 percent in 2006. What explains these international and intertemporal differences? Is it demographics, government spending, productivity growth or preferences? Our answer is preferences. Developed societies are placing increasing weight on the welfare of those currently alive, particularly contemporaneous older generations. This conclusion emerges from estimating two models in which society makes consumption and labor supply decisions in light of uncertainty over future government spending, productivity, and social preferences. The two models differ in terms of the nature of preference uncertainty and the extent to which current society can control future societies' spending and labor supply decisions.

Abstract:This paper considers a model economy in which agents are privately informed about their type: their endowments of various goods and their preferences over these goods. While preference orderings over observable choices are allowed to be correlated with an agent's private type, we assume that the planner/government is both uncertain about the nature of this joint distribution and unable to choose among multiple equilibria of any given social mechanism. We model the planner/government as having a maxmin objective in the face of this uncertainty. Our main theorem is as follows: Once we allow for this kind of uncertainty and assume no wealth effects in preferences, the uniquely optimal social contract is laissez-faire, in which agents trade in unfettered markets with no government intervention of any kind.

Abstract:What role does a man's intelligence play in women's mate preferences? Selecting a more intelligent mate often provides women with better access to resources and parental investment for offspring. But this preference may also provide indirect genetic benefits in the form of having offspring who are in better physical condition, regardless of parental provisioning. Intelligence then may serve as both a cue of a mate's provisioning abilities and his overall heritable phenotypic quality. In the current study, we examined the role of a man's intelligence in women's long- and short-term mate preferences. We used a rigorous psychometric measure (men's WAIS scores) to assess intelligence (the first study to our knowledge), in addition to women's subjective ratings to predict mate appeal. We also examined the related trait of creativity, using women's ratings as a first step, to assess whether creativity could predict mate appeal, above and beyond intelligence. Finally, we examined whether preferences for intelligent and creative short-term mates shifted according to a woman's conception risk. Multilevel modeling was used to identify predictors of mate appeal. Study participants (204 women) assessed the long- and short-termmate appeal of videos of 15 men with known measures of intelligence performing verbal and physical tasks. Findings indicate that both intelligence and creativity independently predicted mate appeal across mating contexts, but no conception-risk effects were detected. We discuss implications of these findings for the role of intelligence and creativity in women's mate choices.

Abstract:We consider a male and a female in a courtship encounter over continuous time. Both parties pay participation costs per unit time. The game ends when either one or other of the parties quits or the female accepts the male as a mate. We assume that there is a binary variable which determines whether the male is a “good” or “bad” type from the female's point of view, according to either his condition or his willingness to care for the young after mating. This variable is not directly observable by the female, but has fitness consequences for her: she gets a positive fitness payoff from mating with a “good” male but a negative fitness payoff from mating with a “bad” male. We assume also that a “good” male has a higher ratio of fitness benefit from mating to fitness cost per unit time of courtship than a “bad” male. We show that, under suitable assumptions, there are evolutionarily stable equilibrium behaviours in which time-extended courtship takes place. A “good” male is willing to court for longer than a “bad” male; in this way the duration of a male's courtship signals his type, and acts as a costly handicap. By not being willing to mate immediately the female achieves a degree of screening because the posterior probability that the male is “good”, conditional on his not having quit the game, increases with the duration of courtship.

--------------------

"A UK researcher has a new explanation for how the human race manages to keep a fairly even balance of males and females, despite massive deaths of young males in war and selective abortion of female fetuses in certain parts of the world. Corry Gellatly, a research scientist at Newcastle University, proposes that there's a gene that determines whether a man will father more sons, more daughters, or equal numbers of each. When females are in short supply, they have a better chance of snagging a mate, and are thus more likely to pass the gene for fathering daughters on to their offspring. And when men are scarce, they have a better chance of mating and passing along the gene for having sons...The ratio of male to female births jumped significantly at the end of each of the world wars in countries involved in the fighting. A number of hypotheses have been floated to explain why. One idea is that returning soldiers have extra-frequent sex with their partners, which could lead to fertilization earlier in the menstrual cycle, possibly making male births more likely. Another hypothesis holds that larger males are more likely to survive wars and more likely to father boys. After sorting through 927 family trees from North America and Europe, including 556,387 people in all, Gellatly proposes another explanation. In an article published online in the journal Evolutionary Biology, the researcher suggests that men carry a gene that controls their ratio of X to Y sperm, and thus the likelihood of their fathering sons or daughters. Women carry the gene as well and pass it along, but do not express it." [Source: Reuters]

Questions: How in the world did I ever get married? Fraud, perhaps? Is it really true that "good" men will court longer? Why? And having a gene that "controls" the ratio of X to Y....how? In response to what stimulus?

"...[edit], nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable, when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence, frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim.

So likewise, a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification. It leads also to concessions to the favorite nation of privileges denied to others which is apt doubly to injure the nation making the concessions; by unnecessarily parting with what ought to have been retained, and by exciting jealousy, ill-will, and a disposition to retaliate, in the parties from whom equal privileges are withheld. And it gives to ambitious, corrupted, or deluded citizens (who devote themselves to the favorite nation), facility to betray or sacrifice the interests of their own country, without odium, sometimes even with popularity; gilding, with the appearances of a virtuous sense of obligation, a commendable deference for public opinion, or a laudable zeal for public good, the base or foolish compliances of ambition, corruption, or infatuation.

As avenues to foreign influence in innumerable ways, such attachments are particularly alarming to the truly enlightened and independent patriot. How many opportunities do they afford to tamper with domestic factions, to practice the arts of seduction, to mislead public opinion, to influence or awe the public councils ? Such an attachment of a small or weak towards a great and powerful nation dooms the former to be the satellite of the latter.

Against the insidious wiles of foreign influence (I conjure you to believe me, fellow-citizens) the jealousy of a free people ought to be constantly awake, since history and experience prove that foreign influence is one of the most baneful foes of republican government. But that jealousy to be useful must be impartial; else it becomes the instrument of the very influence to be avoided, instead of a defense against it. Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.

[edit, portion dealing primarily with European intrigues of the time]

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing (with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them) conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard..."

Some of what Prof. Taylor says makes good sense to me, some of it less so. But one portion is worth quoting:

One of the areas that Viguerie and his camp ignore in terms of “small government” is the increasing ability of the central state to intrude on our private lives, and well as the increase in power of the executive in way that damages our democracy. This is a more pernicious problem than most “small government” conservatives admit, and indeed, many who forcefully criticize fiscal policy aspects of “big government” are frequently boosters of an ever-growing security state that will “keep us safe” replete with an executive that ignores Congress when it feels like it. To me this is far more antithetical to the notion of “small government” than any amount of welfare spending could ever be.

The Repubs focused on lowering taxes, without decreasing spending. In fact, they increased spending, and regulation, more than any administration in history. All that does is borrow against the future. Maybe it doesn't do "harm," but it certainly does no good, unless you embrace the Keynesian principles the Repubs claim to hate.

And, the increases in regulation, education nannyism in the name of accountability, and the sheer hubris of the Patriot Act, the Gitmo imprisonment of due process, and outright lying about the war and etraordinary rendition.....Well, let me just say I think Prof. Taylor is on solid ground with this critique. The Repubs were hijacked and hoodwinked by a radical, statist minority who cloak their true intentions in "small government" rhetorical fabric.

Connecting this to Obama, however, is a bit of a stretch. MOST of the stuff published in the Harvard Law Review is crackpot science, or crackpot legal theory, or the product of crack or pot (pharmaceuticals). Don't blame BHO for this one thing. No one person can answer for Harvard.

I just wish this weren't so true. President Obama is going to reform the public schools by sending his kids to private schools. Should he be able to do this? Is he right to do this, given the problems in the DC schools. Yup. It's the hypocrisy that bothers me.

Really a tremendous satire. Yes, you may have seen it long ago. But I just saw it for the first time.

Thursday, January 01, 2009

1. Easily the best and biggest thing in musis is the third album from "The Mungers," titled Mungertown Road. I like the whole album, but the track entitled "B School" is extremely fine. And the title track captures a lot of where I came from, even though they are singing about Connecticut and I grew up in Florida.

2. Vampire Weekend. It is interesting that it is trendy to hate things that become trendy. And in music there is zero correspondence between "I subjectively like X" and "X is objectively good," for me or for anyone else. So I make no claims that Vampire Weekend is good. But I like listening to it. The lyrics are literate, and the New England references work for me because I have spent a lot of time there.

3. Taylor Swift, Fearless. Yes, it's robotic, formulaic, and entirely predictable. So are Big Macs. I had a Big Mac the other day. And I thought, "yummmm." My test for albums is pretty simple: Do I want to sing along, really loud, in the car. And I want to sing Taylor Swift. Someday, when she turns 13, she'll be even better.

Disappointments: Chinese Democracy (G&R) and Forth (The Verve)

Movies I liked (alphabetical order):

Dark Knight (one of the top five, all time, for me)(The Tale of) Despereaux (a very libertarian movie, at least for the first half)Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (I didn't expect to like it)Ironman (absurd premise, but it really worked)Quantum of SolaceRachel Getting Married (more complex than I expected, interesting, Anne H is amazing)(The) Visitor (not exactly happy, but remarkably acted and directed)Sweeny Todd (Yes, really)

Disappointments: Kung Fu Panda, Wall-E, Burn After Reading (I couldn't finish, and walked out), There Will Be Blood, and Slumdog Millionaire. Maybe I expected too much, after the hype. Of these, Slumdog Millionaire was the best. It is surely a great movie in terms of execution and filming, but I kept looking at my watch.

Note that that was me, right between Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Pretty fun. Three hours of air time, and lots of callers. I have guest hosted five times now. Not easy to keep track of time and commercials.